Jian Ghomeshi rape case

Umpteen different women accused Jian Ghomeshi of raping them. He was rightly acquitted.

Reading the evidence, I interpret it as indicating that he was so besieged by hot chicks that he generally would not date the same woman twice. When he dated a woman he would rough her up to turn her on. This sometimes resulted in her becoming so sexually excited she would have sex with him on the first date. In which case he when he was finished using her, he would kick her out like a piece of trash. Or if she did not have sex with him on the first date, he would also kick her out like a piece of trash, presumably because he expected the next date to be more compliant.

She would then pursue him in email and in person, offering quick casual sex in language that became ever plainer and more direct, which contacts he politely or rudely ignored. This is a man who having had a woman once, would continually turn down offers to have her again.

Some women, after being ignored in this manner, then charged him with sexual assault. These were the classic failure-to-booty-call rape accusations.

Jian Ghomeshi is tolerably good looking, but not exceptionally handsome. He is not charismatic. He is mildly famous and mildly influential. He is not particularly narcissistic. I conjecture that the chief reason for his success with women was that he is just naturally and instinctively a total asshole with a tendency to sadistic violence.

Progressive degenerates define BDSM as role playing – safe words and all that. He states that he never role played – which would indicate Ghomeshi got real, rather than pretended, submission from women.

Ghomeshi piously claimed to be a feminist, which is a piety that is absolutely mandatory for someone with his kind of job, but in practice always treated women as they love to be treated – like domestic animals.

He is Iranian by ancestry, therefore may have been raised redpilled.

This entry was posted on Friday, March 25th, 2016 at 10:47 and is filed under culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

68 Responses to “Jian Ghomeshi rape case”

How do you manage to avoid finding women dishonest, crazy, dangerous and/or repulsive after making such conscious observations about them (the accuracy of which I’m in no way contesting, BTW)?

(And no, I don’t get laid often, which is made obvious anyway by the simple fact of my asking. Even I know that.)

Like a pygmie observing a rocket launch, I observe that the fellows most successful with and comfortable around women are also those who understand that they’re duplicitous opportunistic disloyal back-stabbing animals. How can this be? Clearly there are principles at work here that I don’t in any way understand. I confess!

you don’t think of them as men. if they were men they’d be as you say.

you probably already act like cats and dogs are cats and dogs instead of acting like they’re men.

also, you can be somewhat comfortable hanging out with niggers if you understand that will behave like niggers, which means in particular not trying to explain stuff and take pride in logic and adherence to philosophy the way Whites always do, because they consider that annoying, and always ensuring that you display the level of respect that you think is suitable, because if you don’t, they’ll chimp out at you.

your girlfriend can not be your best friend, though, of course, if you ask her, she will try to be, because she is programmed to try to please you.

They need to be owned structurally, officially, acknowledged as such by the culture and the state. Only then can the shitshow end and we can get back to doing what we should be. The amount of time and energy spent on this pursuit can be used elsewhere for much good, instead we are wasting it doing what previous generations already had as a given. Remember all, game is fine and dandy, but the aim should be structural, open, structural, structural and…structural. If you are not ‘feeling’ that, then you probably aren’t interested in preserving and improving Europe and North America.

In the current environment this often takes the perverse form of a woman receiving child support money and blowing it all on demon lovers who show up briefly to take her money and beat her children. But when it manifests in its normal, healthy, and proper form, where the man contributes manly things to the household, and the woman contributes womanly things, you are going to like the woman who looks after you.

(Thanksbuddy. I know this is remedial classes stuff, but it’s where I’m at.)

> But when it manifests in its normal, healthy, and
> proper form, where the man contributes manly
> things to the household, and the woman contributes
> womanly things, you are going to like the woman
> who looks after you.

Is there, like, a theme park where I can go to observe this kind of thing?

But these will just show you what a normal relationship between a man and a woman looks like. Does not tell you how to establish a normal relationship in these more difficult times.

Every successful marriage is quietly and furtively eighteenth century, even though functional and healthy marriages were criminalized in the nineteenth century.

Keep in mind that normal functional marriages and normal sexual relationships have been criminalized since the mid nineteenth century, so to establish one you need to be a bit of a desperado who is capable of breaking the rules and breaking laws. You need to be the wild one.

Though normal heterosexual relationships were criminalized in the nineteenth century these laws were so contrary to nature, custom, and social mores as to universally ignored until the sixties and early seventies, when they started to get tough about enforcing them, and socializing people to obey them. Since you need to disobey current laws and social mores, since you need to resist your socialization, you need to be an anti social delinquent asshole, which you will not see depicted in these shows. But these shows will show you where you should be headed to, even though they are unrealistic about how to get there.

OK, but the only standards under which we can say he raped those women are the feminist “sex is rape if it’s not part of a personally fulfilling or otherwise recognized as positive relationship (e.g. forced sex from niggers)” or the Nazi “sex between mud “people” and White women is rape”.

Since the second standard is currently and for the foreseeable future outside the Overton window and a violation of international and US law, all we can do is signal against the first, which is what was just put to trial and rejected.

Daily reminder that those six WASP cucks voted for miscegenation and the understanding that marriage is about feels not children.

Daily reminder that those three Episcopaliens and former Klansman Hugo Black decided that the state of their souls and the souls of Whites in the US are more imperiled by hate than their families and White families across the country are threatened by miscegenation.

Daily reminder that thousands and thousands of young White women, including White women I have personally known or have family ties to, have been fed to niggers by lying cuckstains who only care for their precious souls.

Persians are literally Aryans, therefore, Persians are white. We just tan a little easily under the scorching Middle Eastern sun, but that’s it.

Also, Muslim browns (and brown-allied whites- eg Chechens and converts to Islam) are the only ones resisting the cathedral on a large scale. Western Whites, on the other hand, are the vanguards of the Cathedral, actively promoting its doctrines around the world.

Don’t waste your breathe on some of these guys. I’m half Neapolitan and half Polish and as far as most WN’s and many NRX’s are concerned, that makes me non white.
I’ve known several Persians, none of them darker than your average Greek or Italian.
They were well educated and perfect gentlemen, better people than many American whites, but will never be accepted as white, at least not around these parts.
Same goes for red haired, green eyed Chechens and Dagestanis. I’ve met a couple and if even 10% of the white male population of the U.S. and Europe were as tough and uncompromising as those guys our problems in the West would be over very quickly.
Alas, around here they are not white and never will be.

I’m surprised that no one has yet accused Roosh V of sexual assault or rape. Whatever natural Persian charm these men possess seems not to work on Persian women; Iran’s TFR is down to 1.85, and would probably be lower if not for tribal minorities like Arabs, Kurds, and Balochs.

Iranian women are major whores (besides my mom and women of her generation and back- think 1950’s, before the Shah cucked us with Wesernization).

Like Western women, they just fuck around while sterilized, hence the low TFR. Low TFR suggests use of birth control, not a lack of sex. Every other married Iranian woman is fucking outside of marriage these days, its normal and expected.

Nuke Tehran now. Only geopolitcally irrelevant conservative villages and towns should remain in the Middle East.

Oh man, you fellas are a laugh riot. Ghomeshi wasn’t ‘raised red pill’, he was raised ‘mudflap’. He’s an ignorant savage putting on airs of civility and got busted when he couldn’t keep up the charade. For liberals and progs the story never gets old. If you go round humping liberal women this is what happens. Serves him right that the legal fees bankrupted him.

But what really makes me laugh is this crap about women being livestock. HAR HAR HAR – boys, if you wanna think that way go ahead – but don’t bitch when you end up with a slow witted cow for a wife because it’s all your fault.

The secret to a good, wholesome classical marriage is not treating women like animals – but rather a classical courtship. Long courtships, chaperoned outings, and getting to actually know your potential mate before screwing it. If you jump into bed with any piece of idiotic trash that comes along you deserve what you get.

For me – my wife is smarter than pretty much all of you and twice as capable. Mind you, I won’t settle for cattle like you boys will. 😉

Ghomeshi wasn’t ‘raised red pill’, he was raised ‘mudflap’. He’s an ignorant savage putting on airs of civility and got busted when he couldn’t keep up the charade

Ghomeshi got laid like a rug. That is red pill. He had more women seeking booty calls than he had time and energy to bang.

But what really makes me laugh is this crap about women being livestock. HAR HAR HAR

Works.

getting to actually know your potential mate before screwing it.

In all of human history, most marriages have resembled the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah – purchase or abduction. Abraham’s servant purchased Rebekah the day that he met her. Isaac met Rebekah after he was married to her, and had sex with her half an hour or so after meeting her. She introduced herself to him after his morning prayer, and they had sex before breakfast.

Ghomeshi screwed tire biters, skanks and whores. He was an idiot that believed in ‘free love’ and paid the price for it. I wouldn’t screw them with your dink, Jim…are you sure that red pill isn’t a Lifesaver? 🙂

Sure, treating women like livestock works – if you wanna marry a cow. That ain’t good enough for me – in this day and age if you want to get ahead and live the good life, you need a wife as smart and resourceful as you are.

Perhaps I mispoke about ‘classical marriage’. If you want a happy marriage that lasts – one that allows a man and wife to pool resources and divide labour … One that allows you both to operate as an effective team – you won’t get that from a subservient cow.

Hey – if these boys wanna worship that mutt as some kind of hero go ahead – I guess clowns need role models too.

Ghomeshi had umpteen hot women seeking sex with him for years on end without him responding to them or encouraging them. He did better than president Clinton.

Perhaps I mispoke about ‘classical marriage’. If you want a happy marriage that lasts – one that allows a man and wife to pool resources and divide labour … One that allows you both to operate as an effective team – you won’t get that from a subservient cow.

All successful marriages that I have observed are quietly eighteenth century, conform to Saint Paul’s prescription for the relationship of wife and husband. All that fail to conform to his prescription, break up – usually with the wife irresponsibly and destructively spending the family assets and recklessly endangering her children.

If a wife does not submit to her husband, she does not view the family assets as something to be conserved, but as something to be plundered and ravaged. If a wife does not submit, there is no us, no one flesh,no cooperation. There is no team, for a team needs a captain.

My wife was a very smart woman, and she did my tax returns etc and made most of the decisions – but she made them in accordance with my directives. When in doubt as to what I would have decided, she brought the issue to me. When she made a decision wrongly, I reprimanded her. If she kept making wrong decisions, I would reprimand her sternly and take over that area.

She found the house in which I now live – I told her what sort of a house to look for, she made a list, and then we went together to check out houses on the list. When we came to this house I told her we would buy this house. She negotiated. She hammered the seller down a considerable way, and told me she was confident he would drop another thousand. (She was very good at judging the lowest price that someone would take, and the highest price they would pay.) I told her no, we would pay rather than risk the house getting away. And so, that was that. I paid, and we moved in.

It’s debatable that long courtships are that beneficial. Just how long do they really need to be? Jim has mentioned arrangements where unattached women in late 18th-century Australia were simply assigned men and it worked out tolerably well. I’ve also known of arranged marriages where the bride and groom met for only a brief time before the wedding that are still going strong.

> For me – my wife is smarter than pretty much all of you and twice as capable.

LOL. I love the jargon and buzz words you children deploy as you put on airs of intellectualism! Sorry kid- but the progs and feminists see as much virtue in me or less than you do!

The human animal is not meant to be promiscuous or polygamous. Those cultures that extoll those behaviours always weaken and fall. You can’t build strong nations on weak communities. Strong communities can’t be built on weak families.

Ghomeshi is a weak, flawed man – and now he’s a pariah and broke. Justice is served.

He is most certainly meant to polygynous. We are descended from far more women than men, indicating that among our ancestors most men failed to reproduce, and a few men reproduced massively.

Civilization requires patriarchy and monogamy, but any argument for monogamy presupposes patriarchy, that women are owned by their fathers, who transfer ownership to husbands. If fertile age women are allowed to wander round fucking who they please, they all fuck Jeremy Meeks – and if Jeremy Meeks is too busy to fuck them, they fuck Jian Ghomeshi. If you emancipate women, Jeremy Meeks gets most of the pussy, and nice guys get used up burned out thirty year olds.

For monogamy to exist, it has to be forcefully and coercively imposed on women. Women have submit.

Monogamy should be understood as a system of rationing to deal with the shortages that result from price controlling pussy.

Monogamy is a part of a deal between fighting men, where each man who is willing to work and fight gets at least one women, men disinclined to work or fight get kicked out, and women are not consulted about the deal.

T.B.H., “getting pussy” is a sort of unfathomable thing in the abstract, I can reference wiser men then myself saying so, and with today’s ruined female population, is not worth their entitled attitudes more often than not.

Chivalry was an important thing, to sneer at it shows impossbly bad manners, and it was a good thing not for the way it helped women, but for the way that it trained up men to be well-disciplined and orderly…

But “getting pussy” is the important thing…

Also, brown men getting with white women is not something that serves as a good conversation piece at all. Period.

Chivalry was an important thing, to sneer at it shows impossbly bad manners,

Chivalry makes sense in the context of knighthood. And knighthood is exemplified by William the Marshal, the man who personally embodied chivalry.

Who pursued one heiress by laying siege to her castle, changed his mind when he caught her, then took another heiress’ castle by personal storm after cutting a deal with her fiancee, rendering the castle undefended, defeated her guardian in personal man to man combat, seized her, and married her.

Chivalry makes sense in an environment where women are respectful of men and rationally fearful of them. Chivalry is civilization and decency in an environment of violent and thuggish male supremacy. It makes no sense in an environment where women are allowed to fuck Jeremy Meeks. Chivalry is how you transition from the Viking/raid anarcho/piratism model of male supremacy to the Pauline model of male supremacy. William married the heiress and her children inherited their parents’ stuff instead of just seizing her stuff, raping her, and ejecting her naked from her castle.

Since we are at present in anarchy tyranny, not anarcho piratism, chivalry makes no sense. Men pretending to chivalry should be scorned as white knights.

Go for the hat trick Ray! Call me a ‘cuckservative’! That’ll sound real good to the cool kids you’re signalling! LOL. Jim even set you up for it!
Look – I responded to your content and countered with my own. If you’re going to around screwing trailer trash and tire biters… Eventually you’ll get bit the same way Ghomeshi did.

It doesn’t look like “Glenfilthy” is pretending to it. Rather, he seems to have grabbed ahold on whatever moralising verbiage he found near himself to throw it all at the interloping brown.

Did he not call him a “mud” something or other?

Did he not say that his “culture” was inferior, and don’t paleocons often use “culture” as the substitute for the harder word “race”?

I agree with the best minds that women should not be treated as if they were as smart as men. He’s wrong about that part, but he is putting it together with the rest of the issue which seems to be about race.

Well, it certainly appears you have a cuckservative outlook. They have the shared mis-understanding that the key to holding civilization together is for men to restrain their sexuality. Wrong, the key is to reign in female sexual choices. The balance of evidence shows that when they’re left to their own devices, they don’t make good ones.

> Look – I responded to your content and countered with my own.

No you did not. You made the claim about long courtship being the key to successful marriage. I countered that claim with examples of successful marriages where that didn’t occur. You did not respond, maybe because you have no effective rebuttal.

> If you’re going to around screwing trailer trash and tire biters…
> Eventually you’ll get bit the same way Ghomeshi did.

That phenomenon is the outcome primarily of female sexual choices, not male choices.

Well Jim, let’s just say you and I disagree on what courtship means. IN Ghomeshis case you are undoubtedly correct – which is why no woman of worth would be caught dead with him. I think we have differing tastes in women too, come to think of it.

“Women are psychologically well adapted to an environment where marriage is by purchase or abduction…”

——————————

That may be so for the kind of women that would bed a slob like Ghomeshi or Roosh, for example. Good women however, know what they’re worth and won’t have the time of day to rut with gutter scum like that. They know what they’re worth, and they will not commit to a man not worthy of them. Nor should a man commit to a woman beneath him.

For marriage to work it has to be good for both partners in the sack – and beyond it. Hence the courtship. I’m surprised that basics like this elude the denizens of the manosphere – but it explains their dismal success with women.

Good women however, know what they’re worth and won’t have the time of day to rut with gutter scum like that

You are telling me that nice guys get laid. They do not.

Observed female behavior is that if they do not submit to their husbands, they do not identify with the household – if no captain, then no team – and do not conserve the household assets nor work for the family.

This makes reproduction difficult. Observed behavior is that if it is not Pauline marriage, it is not marriage.

For marriage to work it has to be good for both partners in the sack

Women are only turned on by men they perceive as strong enough to make them submit, only comfortable if they feel themselves owned. They got ticked off by Ghomeshi and accused him of rape not because he made them submit, but because they found him disinclined to take ownership of them.

Female perceptions of male status are crude and primitive, resembling that of a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters. Which is to say, a woman will only have sex with a man if a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters would perceive him as high status, and higher status than herself. Even if her conscious mind can learn to read male status correctly, her pussy overrules her conscious mind and causes her to go with more ancient indicators of status, indicators no longer appropriate in our civilized society.

Thus, in our modern and civilized environment, to make hypergamy eugenic, we have to support male status with signals a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters is capable of reading. Our middle and upper class needs to be more violent, or seemingly more violent.

To this end, to accommodate the primitive female mind too easily impressed by rule breaking and violence, we should bring back dueling, and grant high status males policing powers, and impose on them a duty to police order. Then we get more women screwing executives in the executive bathroom, and less women screwing thugs in a dark alley, which though still pretty bad, is a major improvement on what we have now.

Ghomeshi was able to have a fresh woman every night because he had actual high status, and, to a small evil child raised by cannibal headhunters, his caveman behavior towards women was congruent with his actual status – his status as a mildly famous radio personality was, to a cannibal headhunter, congruent with his interpersonal behavior towards women.

He was a high status male in our society (being a moderately famous radio personality) and also behaved like a high status male in the ancestral environment, the environment of evolutionary adaptation, would have behaved – arrogant, violent, cruel, and demanding.

I am telling you, Jim, that if you make a habit of treating women like dirt – either they or their men will eventually catch up with you to even the score as they did with Ghomeshi.

Further to that point – if you lie with dogs as Ghomeshi did, you will get feas or get bitten. Ghomeshi screwed slutty women and believed the liberal lie of ‘free love’. Contrary to liberals and feminists (and yourself, apparently) – there is no such thing as free love. When Ghomeshi’s whores demanded their fee, he didn’t have it. That is why they went after him. If you have a real relationship with a woman of quality – you don’t have to worry about crap like this.

Where are you kids learning this shite? We’re you raised in trailer parks?

Glenfilthie said:
> I am telling you, Jim, that if you make a habit of treating women like dirt
> – either they or their men will eventually catch up with you

Throughout most of human history, it’s doubtful that the town bike had the social clout needed to ‘catch up’ with men over a case of hurt feelings. We live in unusual times, with Puritan affirmative consent laws juxtaposed with slutwalks.

Modern Western societies make attempts to restrict male sexuality to surreal levels, while simultaneously attempting to make as much “choice” (mostly corresponding to freedom of consequences) available to women as possible. The result has not been beneficial to either women or men.

You are of course correct, Alan! I tend to lurk here more than post for exactly that reason. Nothing is sacred here; and honest conversation is the rule of the day! I like that in a blogger! Hats off to you, Jim!

As for Ghomeshi – nobody knew who he was before this incident except the slags that run in progressive liberal circles. In a few months Ghomeshi will slide into obscurity and his groupies will throw him away with the trash just as he did with them.

Culturally I think Jim and his reactionaries are merely a product of the times. They’ve adopted the counterculture of ‘free love’ and are coming up with inventive ways to explain their failure in the midst of it. I personally have no dog in this fight – if feminists and ‘neo-reactionaries’ want to gore each other to death – for me it’s a win for everyone. I was raised in better times by better people, I guess.

LOL – guess I’ll defer to our esteemed host at this point! Ride that bitch like a rented mule, boys! What can POSSIBLY go wrong? It worked so well for Ghomeshi, I suppose! LOL.

In a few months Ghomeshi will slide into obscurity and his groupies will throw him away with the trash just as he did with them.

Ghomeshi is a huge success, having fresh pussy continually. Nice guys are huge failures. The things that brought Ghomeshi huge success are likely to continue to bring him success.

Monogamy is incompatible with female emancipation, with treating women as equals, because women, if you let them, will usually have sex with Jeremy Meeks.

If women are allowed free sexual choice, they usually make profoundly unwise choices.

Monogamy is a deal between men for reducing male on male conflict by fair sharing of pussy, in which deal women were never consulted, and which deal has to be coercively imposed on women against their wills.

Women rather like being coerced sexually. Submitting turns them on. Being owned gives them comfort and security. They want strong men to deny them dangerous choices. Their resistance is just a test, to measure to strength that masters them.

You were. Kids those days do not have the option of living in those better times though. They have to live in the present. And you insist that they need to live as if in those better times. It doesn’t work.

Cuckservatism is similar – the insistence that life ought to be the same as if the country were still 90% white. It isn’t, and pretending not to notice doesn’t work.

pdimov said:
> “I was raised in better times by better people, I guess.”

> You were. Kids those days do not have the option of living in those better
> times though. They have to live in the present. And you insist that they
> need to live as if in those better times. It doesn’t work.

No it doesn’t, and the cuckservative commetariot demanding that young men “man up” to solve our current crop of social problems just shows utter cluelessness at best. At worst it’s a cynical ploy to manipulate them to act
against their own best interest. Pastor Mark Driscoll is an example of this brand of cuckservative and bloggers like Dalrock have roundly criticized him.

“It was the email where I said: “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to fuck your brains out.” And that’s when I knew it was over. My testimony had fallen apart.”

And this woman is not some random “trailer park skank,” but an educated woman: employed, a professional actress, and not at all bad-looking (when she was young, of course). (Ironically, she is known for playing “Trailer Park Boys” — so… there you go.)

The mere supposition that I should feel empathy towards her is insulting to any neutral, sane man. Not just insulting, but bordering on criminal: because of this woman’s allegations, an innocent man could have gone to prison, and she is seeking compassion!

I am now a full convert to your worldview (as bitter it is to live with). Women need to be kept on a leash, some in figurative sense, but others, possibly, in a very literal sense thereof.